Timeline for a claim for a proof of the invariant subspace problem [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 5 at 14:08 | comment | added | Daniel Asimov | I find it beyond ridiculous that this question should be closed. It is a perfectly reasonable question, since it is about an important unsolved problem in research mathematics. There is nothing gained by closing such a question. In fact, it led to Jochen Glueck's very useful debunking of the paper in his answer below. | |
| Sep 4 at 9:04 | comment | added | Jochen Glueck | @JochenWengenroth: In defense of the new club members whose paper is linked in the question, I have to say that their paper is at least sufficiently clearly written that I could find the mistake within 20 minutes or so. In contrast, when I tried to read Enflo's recent paper, I just gave up after the same period of time. | |
| Sep 4 at 8:39 | history | closed |
Monroe Eskew Dave Benson Qiaochu Yuan Daniele Tampieri abx |
Not suitable for this site | |
| Sep 4 at 7:41 | comment | added | Jochen Wengenroth | The club of ISP-solvers has quite a number of members, it might be chaired by Enflo (arxiv.org/abs/2305.15442) and de Branges (math.purdue.edu/~branges/invariantsubspaces.pdf). | |
| Sep 4 at 7:01 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | MDPI, and Axioms in particular, is a predatory publisher. The referee requests they occasionally send me ask for reviews due in two weeks, which is completely ridiculous; this kind of review process is obviously just a fig leaf. And, of course, they ask authors for exorbitant article processing charges (a recent spam from them I found in my inbox mentions 2400 CHF). Also, I was under the impression that Axioms was supposed to be a logic journal; what that has to do with functional analysis? | |
| Sep 4 at 6:46 | answer | added | Jochen Glueck | timeline score: 21 | |
| Sep 4 at 6:10 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 4 at 8:43 | |||||
| Sep 4 at 6:06 | history | edited | Daniele Tampieri | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added extended reference
|
| Sep 4 at 6:03 | comment | added | Antonius | Without looking at the paper, I'd say the proof is probably wrong. Otherwise the authors would have chosen a first rate journal. The journal Axioms is not even on the MR reference list. | |
| Sep 4 at 5:50 | history | edited | euleroid | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| S Sep 4 at 5:49 | review | First questions | |||
| Sep 4 at 6:03 | |||||
| S Sep 4 at 5:49 | history | asked | euleroid | CC BY-SA 4.0 |